The use of eutectic mixture of lidocaine and prilocaine in mice (Mus musculus) for tail vein injections

Treatment of Pain in Rats, Mice, and Prairie Dogs

Recent myomorph and scuiromorph rodent analgesia studies are reviewed and evaluated for potential clinical application. Differences between laboratory animal studies and clinical use in diseased animals are discussed. Analgesia classes reviewed include local anesthetics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories, acetaminophen, opioids, and adjuvants such as anticonvulsants. Routes of administration including sustained-release mechanisms are discussed, as are reversal agents. Drug interactions are reviewed in the context of beneficial multimodal analgesia as well as potential adverse effects. Dosage recommendations for clinical patients are explored.

The Pen Is Milder Than the Blade: Identification Marking Mice Using Ink on the Tail Appears More Humane Than Ear-Punching Even with Local Anaesthetic

Simple Summary

Laboratory mice often look identical, so they are commonly marked by cutting the ear via ear-punching, or marking the tail with permanent marker. Ear-punching is permanent but could be painful, and mice could become stressed by weekly tail-marking, so we compared impacts on mice over 5 weeks. We also explored whether local anaesthetic cream could reduce any ear-punching effects. We found that ear-punching, even with anaesthetic, caused mice to be sniffed and groomed by their cagemates for at least 5 min after marking. Mice ear-punched with anaesthetic also groomed themselves and their ears ~5 times more than tail-marked and control mice. Facial grimacing was most common in the unmarked cagemates of tail-marked mice, and possibly in mice ear-punched with anaesthetic. The next day, mice ear-punched with anaesthetic were significantly less likely to eat unfamiliar food in an anxiety test than tail-marked or control mice. Over 5 weeks, ear-punched mice approached the handler significantly less than unmarked mice did, and tail-marked mice showed reduced defecation during re-marking. Other behaviour, bodyweight, and corticosterone showed no treatment effects. This suggests ear-punching caused some signs of pain and anxiety, and anaesthetic did not help. Tail-marking appeared more humane, showing no differences from the controls.

Abstract

Identification marking mice commonly involves ear-punching with or without anaesthetic, or tail-marking with ink. To identify which is most humane, we marked weanling male BALB/c mice using ear-punching (EP), ear-punching with anaesthetic EMLA^TM cream (EP+A), or permanent marker pen (MP). We compared marked mice, unmarked cagemates, and control mice (n = 12–13/group) for 5 weeks, reapplying MP weekly. Treatment-blind observations following marking showed that EP and EP+A mice were allogroomed (p < 0.001) and sniffed (p < 0.001) by their cagemates more than MP and control mice were. EP+A mice groomed themselves (p < 0.001) and their ears (p < 0.001) ~5 times more than most other mice; their cagemates also increased self-grooming (p < 0.001). Unmarked MP cagemates (p = 0.001), and possibly EP+A mice (p = 0.034; a nonsignificant trend), grimaced the most. The following day, half the EP+A mice showed hyponeophagia versus no MP and control mice (p = 0.001). Over the 5 weeks, EP mice approached the handler significantly less than unmarked cagemates did (p < 0.001). Across weeks, defecation during marking of MP mice decreased (p < 0.001). Treatment showed no effects on immediate responses during marking, aggression, bodyweight, plus-maze behaviour or corticosterone. MP mice showed no differences from controls, whilst EP and EP+A mice showed altered behaviour, so ink-marking may be the more humane identification method.

Clinical Management of Pain in Rodents

The use of effective regimens for mitigating pain remain underutilized in research rodents despite the general acceptance of both the ethical imperative and regulatory requirements intended to maximize animal welfare. Factors contributing to this gap between the need for and the actual use of analgesia include lack of sufficient evidence-based data on effective regimens, under-dosing due to labor required to dose analgesics at appropriate intervals, concerns that the use of analgesics may impact study outcomes, and beliefs that rodents recover quickly from invasive procedures and as such do not need analgesics. Fundamentally, any discussion of clinical management of pain in rodents must recognize that nociceptive pathways and pain signaling mechanisms are highly conserved across mammalian species, and that central processing of pain is largely equivalent in rodents and other larger research species such as dogs, cats, or primates. Other obstacles to effective pain management in rodents have been the lack of objective, science-driven data on pain assessment, and the availability of appropriate pharmacological tools for pain mitigation. To address this deficit, we have reviewed and summarized the available publications on pain management in rats, mice and guinea pigs. Different drug classes and specific pharmacokinetic profiles, recommended dosages, and routes of administration are discussed, and updated recommendations are provided. Nonpharmacologic tools for increasing the comfort and wellbeing of research animals are also discussed. The potential adverse effects of analgesics are also reviewed. While gaps still exist in our understanding of clinical pain management in rodents, effective pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic strategies are available that can and should be used to provide analgesia while minimizing adverse effects. The key to effective clinical management of pain is thoughtful planning that incorporates study needs and veterinary guidance, knowledge of the pharmacokinetics and mechanisms of action of drugs being considered, careful attention to individual differences, and establishing an institutional culture that commits to pain management for all species as a central component of animal welfare.

Acute pain responses in dairy calves undergoing cornual nerve blocks with or without topical anesthetic

Dairy calves are routinely administered medicines, vaccines, and anesthesia via injection. Although injections are painful, little is known about methods to alleviate this pain. The aim of this study was to determine whether lidocaine-prilocaine cream, a topical anesthetic, reduced calves' pain response to a subcutaneous injection around the cornual nerve. Calves were assigned 1 of 2 treatments: lidocaine-prilocaine cream at the sites of injection (n = 10) or no cream (n = 9). Thirty minutes after treatment, calves received a subcutaneous injection of 2% buffered lidocaine hydrochloride around the left and right cornual nerves. Contrary to our hypothesis, calves that received anesthetic cream beforehand displayed more escape behaviors during the injections than control calves. Both treatments had similarly low amounts of head-related behaviors afterward. Maximum eye temperature did not differ between the calves that received anesthetic cream and control calves, although eye temperature increased over time for both treatments. Heart rate increased during the 30 s following the first injection in both treatments. There were no treatment differences for any heart rate measures over the 5-min period after the first injection (mean heart rate, root mean square of successive differences, high-frequency power, and the ratio of low-frequency power to high-frequency power). These results suggest that cornual nerve blocks with buffered lidocaine are painful and that a lidocaine-prilocaine cream was not only ineffective in reducing this pain but that it may also worsen it.

Development of a Piglet Grimace Scale to Evaluate Piglet Pain Using Facial Expressions Following Castration and Tail Docking: A Pilot Study

Facial expressions are increasingly being used to assess pain in non-human species, including rodents, horses, and lambs. The development of these species-specific grimace scales has allowed for more rapid pain detection, which can lead to better animal welfare if intervention promptly occurs. For grimace scales to ever be used as a stand-alone measure of pain, it is important they correlate with established pain assessment tools, such as behavioral analysis. This preliminary study aimed to determine whether piglets exhibit pain grimacing and if these facial expressions correlate with their behavior. It also assessed and compared the behavior of boar piglets given an analgesic and topical anesthetic prior to surgical castration and tail docking to piglets that did not receive anything for pain relief. Five-day-old male Yorkshire piglets (n = 19) from four pens were randomly assigned, within their pen, to one of five possible treatments: meloxicam (0.4 mg/kg, intramuscularly) + EMLA^® cream, meloxicam (0.4 mg/kg, intramuscularly) + non-medicated cream, saline (intramuscularly) + EMLA^® cream, saline (intramuscularly) + non-medicated cream, or no treatment prior to surgical castration and tail docking. Piglet behaviors were video recorded for 8 h immediately after castration, as well as for 1 h at 24 h pre- and post-castration. Their individual behaviors were scored continuously for the first 15 min of every hour of video collected. Facial images were also captured across all time points. A Piglet Grimace Scale (PGS) was developed and used by two observers blinded to treatment, time, and procedure to score over 600 piglet faces. All piglets displayed significant behavioral changes up to 7 h post-castration when compared to baseline, and the use of meloxicam and EMLA^® cream was not associated with a reduction in painful behaviors. Significantly higher PGS scores were noted at 0, 3, 4, and 5 h post-castration when compared to PGS scores at 7 h and there was no effect of treatment. PGS scores significantly correlated with piglet behavioral activity. The results suggest that the PGS may have utility for pain evaluation in neonatal pigs.